Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store

[Smith288]

I completely get it. There's literally nothing about this that I don't fully understand.

Feel free to complain about Twitter banning certain people and not others. It's a perfectly valid complaint (although this idea that every single platform and every single company must show perfect symmetry is a bit rich to me). Trump should be banned, IMO, when looking at their TOS. There are plenty of people that could be banned. Yet Twitter, Facebook, Apple, etc. are well within their rights to choose who to ban based on severity of the issue, the prolific nature of certain content, etc.

The idea that they are just banning "all the conservatives they want" is pretty comical, though. Typical right wing outrage machine. I thought you guys were supposed to be a fan of a small government?

Well, if you want to get into policy, ok.

I don’t favor the gov getting into anything. The last time that happened, we had the “fairness doctrine”. It’s stupid.

But one can make an argument that Twitter banning people like Jones but keeping people like Hamas or Farrakhan makes them a publisher as opposed to a platform. With that definition, regulations are already in place. If they want to be a platform then they can’t be held responsible for the content. But banning people makes them, technically a publisher as they have made policy decisions to govern what is being said. They then become responsible for the content. So they are then held to libel standards etc etc.

Be a platform. Give the user the tools to see what they want.

Be a platform. Ban anyone that could create libel issues.

Can’t be both.

 

[yngrshr]

It’s pure censorship of “wrong think”, that’s what it is.

You should be opposing this but seems you only have the ability to think in the short term.

Cool! So fund a platform. Stop being lazy and demanding that people you support get to use any platform they want. This is incredibly easy to correct.
[doublepost=1536429409][/doublepost]

Well, if you want to get into policy, ok.

I don’t favor the gov getting into anything. The last time that happened, we had the “fairness doctrine”. It’s stupid.

But one can make an argument that Twitter banning people like Jones but keeping people like Hamas or Farrakhan makes them a publisher as opposed to a platform. With that definition, regulations are already in place. If they want to be a platform then they can’t be held responsible for the content. But banning people makes them, technically a publisher as they have made policy decisions to govern what is being said. They then become responsible for the content. So they are then held to libel standards etc etc.

Be a platform. Give the user the tools to see what they want.

Be a platform. Ban anyone that could create libel issues.

Can’t be both.

That's simply inaccurate. Removing someone for violating a TOS agreement would never satisfy that.

 

[Ca$hflow]

They just did.

No the didn’t. Silicone valley oligarchs did.

 

[GermanSuplex]

It’s pure censorship of “wrong think”, that’s what it is.

You should be opposing this but seems you only have the ability to think in the short term.

He can't Tweet or host a podcast on Apple. He's free to continue distributing his podcast, he's free to continue having public events, whatever.

You're telling people what they should be doing while simultaneously complaining of censorship and "wrong think"... let that sink in.

 

[Smith288]

Except it's not.

Unless you're willfully trying to misunderstand the First Amendment and how/whom the various amendments are applied. Any mention of "free speech" or the First Amendment is a complete misunderstanding of it. It's not at all relevant to the current discussion.
[doublepost=1536428958][/doublepost]

Feel free to report the users. Twitter bans countless people. Are you unable to report them or something?

Disengenuous answer. The problem is the action of the report or lack thereof when the same reports have gotten others banned. Especially as it relates to the politics involved. Jack has even admitted to the inconsistencies.

 

[Jsameds]

Cool! So fund a platform. Stop being lazy and demanding that people you support get to use any platform they want. This is incredibly easy to correct.

So you are in favour of this purely because this time it happens to fit your agenda.

Amazing. I hope this comes round to bite you in the ass one day.

 

[Spendlove]

This is it exactly. You don't have to download his apps if you disagree. Apple's action is nothing more than a slap in the face of alternative viewpoints and is distinctly un-American (that is if you believe that being American stands for freedom of speech and equality for all.)

To all of you who think this is right, what happens when the meaning of political correctness change and you are on the wrong side. Will it be ok then? No, it won't. But once freedom of speech is gone, its gone forever, or until a bloody civil war emerges.

Freedom of speech means he has the right so say almost whatever, it does not mean anyone has to be forced to listen. Whack jobs like this have been standing on soapboxes on Main Street corners since our founding. This action is the same as forced gagging and its not appropriate no matter whether you agree with him or not.

Its time to make the App Store a utility and regulate it accordingly so that they have to abide by the constitution, at least in the US. Every other government seems to be able to make Apple behave according to their whims.

Utter piffle and nonsense. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but come on, seriously?

You have freedom of speech on your terms, not someone elses. As someone else on here explained it beautifully, you have the rights to sell things but you don't have the right to sell things in other peoples stores if you don't play by their rules.

 

[yngrshr]

Disengenuous answer. The problem is the action of the report or lack thereof when the same reports have gotten others banned. Especially as it relates to the politics involved. Jack has even admitted to the inconsistencies.

It's not a disingenuous answer at all. It's an accurate one. Unless Twitter is curating posts, they aren't ever going to be held to be a publisher. If that's the case, every single platform on the planet with a TOS agreement is a "publisher".

I give you credit for the unique theory, but it's flatly wrong and would never be held as such. Particularly with the right-leaning Court (which is quite ironic).
[doublepost=1536429571][/doublepost]

So you are in favour of this purely because this time it happens to fit your agenda.

Amazing. I hope this comes round to bite you in the ass one day.

Please elaborate.

 

[pacmacman]

So you are in favour of this purely because this time it happens to fit your agenda.

Amazing. I hope this comes round to bite you in the ass one day.

Most people don’t tend to follow racist frauds lying about children being slaughtered. It should be okay.

 

[Jsameds]

He can't Tweet or host a podcast on Apple. He's free to continue distributing his podcast, he's free to continue having public events, whatever.

You're telling people what they should be doing while simultaneously complaining of censorship and "wrong think"... let that sink in.

On Apple, on YouTube, on twitch, on Twitter, on Facebook. All major platforms.

“But he’s still free to talk in his own living room”

lol bless. Welcoming this ideaology with open arms. You people are truely amazing.

 

[fairuz]

And Dana Loesch gets targeted harassment too. They remain on the platform. Why? Does her politics make it “deserved”?

Harassment is usually differentiated from speech if it's something the target can't just ignore, like threats, slander, and solicitation. I'm not sure what you're referring to because I've never heard of Dana Loesch, but it's possible what you're calling harassment isn't really, and if it is, Twitter prioritizes banning the most prominent offenders first.

 

[yngrshr]

Harassment is usually differentiated from speech if it's something the target can't just ignore, like threats, slander, and solicitation.

Correct.

And the funny thing is that there is more irony, here, with Trump being forced to unblock numerous Twitter accounts.

 

[Jsameds]

It's not a disingenuous answer at all. It's an accurate one. Unless Twitter is curating posts, they aren't ever going to be held to be a publisher. If that's the case, every single platform on the planet with a TOS agreement is a "publisher".

I give you credit for the unique theory, but it's flatly wrong and would never be held as such. Particularly with the right-leaning Court (which is quite ironic).
[doublepost=1536429571][/doublepost]

Please elaborate.

Just wait. This time it may suit your particular agenda, but one day it will not and you will realise just how naive you were to welcome mass censorship.

 

[JayMysterio]

I said there is no first amendment issue with NFL players. The poster, if I interpret correctly, tried to tell me there was a hole in my argument. That is incorrect.

There is no first amendment issue re: NFL kneelers. none. There is also no First Amendment issue here with Apple and Alex Jones. None.

THAT is actually up to much debate. There doesn't seem to be clear consensus whether or not kneeling during the anthem is or isn't protected by the first amendment. Like discussing Kaepernick's stats & his worth as a player, you can find plenty of articles debating whether or not kneeling is a form of protected speech. It's all in how you want to frame the conversation. What the focus has been has mostly on how the protest makes some people feel. Going by the poster's response to you it seemed their focus was referring to whether it was against some kind of rules by the NFL to kneel during the anthem. At least that's what I was going by.

 

[pacmacman]

On Apple, on YouTube, on twitch, on Twitter, on Facebook. All major platforms.

“But he’s still free to talk in his own living room”

lol bless. Welcoming this ideaology with open arms. You people are truely amazing.

Why should anyone welcome this ideology? You seem to be confusing freedom of speech with acceptance of speech.

 

[yngrshr]

On Apple, on YouTube, on twitch, on Twitter, on Facebook. All major platforms.

“But he’s still free to talk in his own living room”

lol bless. Welcoming this ideaology with open arms. You people are truely amazing.

You realize that if you weren't lazy that you could just download his podcast and upload it to something like Overcast, right?

You want all the work done for you when you can simply go to his website to listen. Or download the podcast yourself. All of this is something you can freely do right now.

 

[Jsameds]

Cool! So fund a platform. Stop being lazy and demanding that people you support get to use any platform they want. This is incredibly easy to correct.
[doublepost=1536429409][/doublepost]

That's simply inaccurate. Removing someone for violating a TOS agreement would never satisfy that.

Once again (4th tine now?), I don’t support Jones’ opinions.

 

[Spendlove]

It’s a little frightening reading these comments. So many seem happy to see free speech being crushed.

Free speech is easy when it’s bland, boring, normal things. It’s on the extremes where we must be most vigilant to protect it, even if you find what someone says is repugnant.

Stop being so foolish, just because you don’t like what he says (I don’t), doesn’t mean you should be happy to see a person silenced.

Who’s to say what you are saying shouldn’t be silenced, who’s the judge?

The left wing in America is really quite worrying, between branding anything to the right of their far left position as ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ to openly banning people from speaking in public places like Twitter or student campuses.

Please stop and think before you eradicate one of your most valuable freedoms.

He isn't being silenced. His right to free speech is not removed in any way. It is just Apple/Twitter as PRIVATE companies choose not to put up with his bull.

 

[yg17]

For anyone still whining about "free speech":

https://xkcd.com/1357/

 

[yngrshr]

THAT is actually up to much debate. There doesn't seem to be clear consensus whether or not kneeling during the anthem is or isn't protected by the first amendment. Like discussing Kaepernick's stats & his worth as a player, you can find plenty of articles debating whether or not kneeling is a form of protected speech. It's all in how you want to frame the conversation. What the focus has been has mostly on how the protest makes some people feel. Going by the poster's response to you it seemed their focus was referring to whether it was against some kind of rules by the NFL to kneel during the anthem. At least that's what I was going by.

I would say that the consensus is fairly clear.

The act of kneeling itself is 100% protected.

The ability of a team to suspend, cut, etc. a player for kneeling is also protected.

The real question comes with whether Trump's admonishments and threats could somehow end up infringing on the kneeling. That's really the only area that the Constitution really comes into play.

 

[GermanSuplex]

On Apple, on YouTube, on twitch, on Twitter, on Facebook. All major platforms.

“But he’s still free to talk in his own living room”

lol bless. Welcoming this ideaology with open arms. You people are truely amazing.

Maybe getting banned everywhere should send some sort of signal to others.

The living room thing is a gross exaggeration, as you know that's not to be the case. He has a large array of options left. There are a lot of vile things on Youtube, Twitter and elsewhere that do not violate any terms of the respective platforms, and remain on there. People of all races and politics spewing the most disgusting, hateful, vile things - yet their videos/tweets/posts remain.

I don't watch Jones or know much beyond his most vile garbage, but if the way he interacted with Marco Rubio is any indication of his behavior elsewhere, its no surprise he got banned. I guess my question for you would be what do you think a company should draw the line before they ban someone, or should anyone and everyone just be able to say anything on these platforms? There has to be a line, and he apparently crossed them.

 

[Jsameds]

You realize that if you weren't lazy that you could just download his podcast and upload it to something like Overcast, right?

You want all the work done for you when you can simply go to his website to listen. Or download the podcast yourself. All of this is something you can freely do right now.

Yes, and that’s how you create echo chambers who create dangerous ideals.

The matters in hand are much better talked about openly, that way the stupid ones are shot down. In their own echo chambers dangerous ideas are allowed to thrive.

Not a good thing.

 

[gnipgnop]

I said there is no first amendment issue with NFL players. The poster, if I interpret correctly, tried to tell me there was a hole in my argument. That is incorrect.

It's a 1st amendment issue because there was no workplace rule in the NFL regarding body posture during the anthem. And as I noted, the NFL and NFLPA were negotiating a solution that would become a rule. So it doesn't currently appear that the NFL thinks it's wise to claim that the 1st amendment isn't involved at all. They prefer to add something specific to the NFLPA agreement.

 

[Spendlove]

Child porn is illegal. There’s your difference.

So is the bile coming out of his mouth in the UK.

 

[fairuz]

This is it exactly. You don't have to download his apps if you disagree. Apple's action is nothing more than a slap in the face of alternative viewpoints and is distinctly un-American (that is if you believe that being American stands for freedom of speech and equality for all.)

To all of you who think this is right, what happens when the meaning of political correctness change and you are on the wrong side. Will it be ok then? No, it won't. But once freedom of speech is gone, its gone forever, or until a bloody civil war emerges.

Freedom of speech means he has the right so say almost whatever, it does not mean anyone has to be forced to listen. Whack jobs like this have been standing on soapboxes on Main Street corners since our founding. This action is the same as forced gagging and its not appropriate no matter whether you agree with him or not.

Its time to make the App Store a utility and regulate it accordingly so that they have to abide by the constitution, at least in the US. Every other government seems to be able to make Apple behave according to their whims.

Apple does more than simply allowing apps to be installed. First of all, they put a seal of approval when they accept the app in the first place. Then when you search the store, the results are ranked, so it's Apple's curation. And they show the top downloaded apps to people who don't even search for them. Finally, if the app requires payment, Apple processes it for you and them.

Meanwhile, Apple does nothing to stop you from visiting his site by entering the URL, if that's what you want to do. There's also nothing stopping you from sideloading the app with Xcode. But they don't actively accept, market, and sell websites or non-App-Store apps, so that's why.